Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The problem is that the Venn diagram of this group and the one that denies science has a pretty significant overlap...

One of the reasons my favorite new theory is my favorite new theory is it explains this.

The theory, or at least my interpretation of it would posit the following.

For the most part, this group doesn’t really know why they think they need an arsenal, or why the idea of global warming needs to be resisted at all costs, they just do, so they start with the conclusions and work backwards. These conclusions are so important, they’re going to rationalize away threats to it, even if all they’ve got left is saying apparently batshit things.

So, what’s the reason why they’re coming to these conclusions?

Because in a brutally competitive world, these are the best conclusions. In a brutally competitive world, I should have an arsenal. In a brutally competitive world, my tribe should exploit fossil fuel so it’s more successful against competing tribes.

The bad news is, well... in these cases it’s a bunch of people getting shot, and more global warming. The good news is the conclusions aren’t intractable. They just really seem that way because of the “win the argument at all costs” methods used to justify them.

Where everything breaks down is these conclusions were never meant to be followed because they’re a collection of reasoned arguments, but the only communication strategy being employed is to insist they’re not a collection of reasoned arguments.

The convincing needs to happen within the framework which created the conclusions in the first place, instead of (ultimately futile) arguments the entire framework needs to be abandoned and replaced with a new one.

In case liberals think they got off easy here, I don’t think their conclusions were meant to be followed because they’re a collection of reasoned arguments either. Liberal conclusions happen to lend themselves better to a collection of reasoned arguments, so liberals have convinced themselves that’s why they’re following them. It’s ultimately the same instinctual deal which is happening with conservatives, just using a different set of instincts.

Now, libertarians try to go by collections of reasoned arguments, and we all know what dicks they are.

Want to place bets on whether you’d think the real version of the guy (you know it’s a guy) with a rifle in the rack sitting at a green light is a douchebag?

I feel like you're not following me. What I was getting at is that the pro-gun lobby claim certain things to justify people owning, keeping or carrying guns because it enables them to do X under certain conditions. All the studies say they do Y instead and these arguments are therefore wrong.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....

Is my first sentence being construed as about what the CDC is for? It’s about what guns are for. They’re for killing, so having them around makes one unsafe. I expect scientific inquiry to bear this out.

Even if your general expectation is borne out, it is helpful to quantify conjectures. Because other people may feel that a gun makes them (feel) safer, and there is no dissuading them.

Originally Posted by subego

I mentioned the CDC because they were the only federal agency directly affected by the policy. The FBI and the NIH do research on guns, and they were never defunded (though I understand the NIH got a cold feet for awhile).

Who cares if they were the only agency affected by that? Scientific inquiry is scientific inquiry, and shouldn't be squashed just because you don't like what the expected outcomes of scientific studies will be. And it has many facets, some of them are medical, other epidemiological, yet other criminal.

Originally Posted by subego

The value judgement is the opinion the study means guns should be further restricted. The CDC went on the record they intended to use the results of their research to argue guns should be restricted. This is what got them in trouble.

That is not a value judgement if the research suggests that e. g. fewer guns decrease the total number of gun-related deaths or that a gun in the house increases risk. (I am not sure why you use this word in this context.) If politicians aim at reducing the number of gun deaths, then the CDC's research helps them make policy decisions based on the best available evidence. But it is ultimately politicians that decide what to do with the facts just like with anything else.

The CDC's gun-related research was defunded because politicians didn't like what their research said, because it is a much harder sale that gun rights, or more precisely, the current regulatory regime, has a definite cost. Without research they can either make wild claims we suspect are just flat out wrong or at the very least hide behind a shroud of uncertainty. Note that there are other areas where in my mind this is the right thing to do, especially when it comes to infringing the privacy of everyone on earth with the US's big warrantless wiretapping operation. Even if that were to save lives, and the evidence for that is scant (unlike for guns), I am opposed to that on philosophical grounds. If Second Amendment advocates want to take this route, I don't agree, but I understand.

But even then, I think research could show avenues how to implement sensible gun laws that gun advocates support. If research suggests that veterans with PTSD are particularly at risk of committing suicide with a firearm or intimidate their spouse and children with them, you can target them with a whole host of measures that are not just related to gun regulations. You can implement a buddy system where these people voluntarily give up their firearms to someone they know and trust. Or that these people receive special and very quick psychological help. When was the last time, Second Amendment activists or the gun lobby have suggested that and pushed Congress very hard to pass laws in this respect?

Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?

Status:
Offline

Nov 9, 2017, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by Laminar

I get the feeling that the only freedom a second amendment supporter would take up arms to defend is the second amendment.

Where's the line drawn? As far as I can tell, it's "I need to have guns in case the government comes to take my guns."

Since 9/11, our actual freedoms have been eroded time and time again, and nothing has been done about it. I get the impression that if the current administration tried to institute something resembling tyranny, all they would have to do is not bug rich white guys and not try to take guns away from white people and 2A supporters would let them do it.

I didn't mean this as a rhetorical question or pointless grandstanding. I would like to hear from those in favor of guns where you believe the line is? What would have to happen for 2A supporters to take up arms? An administration colluding with a foreign power to rig an election? Constant, uncontrollable mass surveillance?

Even if your general expectation is borne out, it is helpful to quantify conjectures. Because other people may feel that a gun makes them (feel) safer, and there is no dissuading them.

Who cares if they were the only agency affected by that? Scientific inquiry is scientific inquiry, and shouldn't be squashed just because you don't like what the expected outcomes of scientific studies will be. And it has many facets, some of them are medical, other epidemiological, yet other criminal.

That is not a value judgement if the research suggests that e. g. fewer guns decrease the total number of gun-related deaths or that a gun in the house increases risk. (I am not sure why you use this word in this context.) If politicians aim at reducing the number of gun deaths, then the CDC's research helps them make policy decisions based on the best available evidence. But it is ultimately politicians that decide what to do with the facts just like with anything else.

The CDC's gun-related research was defunded because politicians didn't like what their research said, because it is a much harder sale that gun rights, or more precisely, the current regulatory regime, has a definite cost. Without research they can either make wild claims we suspect are just flat out wrong or at the very least hide behind a shroud of uncertainty. Note that there are other areas where in my mind this is the right thing to do, especially when it comes to infringing the privacy of everyone on earth with the US's big warrantless wiretapping operation. Even if that were to save lives, and the evidence for that is scant (unlike for guns), I am opposed to that on philosophical grounds. If Second Amendment advocates want to take this route, I don't agree, but I understand.

But even then, I think research could show avenues how to implement sensible gun laws that gun advocates support. If research suggests that veterans with PTSD are particularly at risk of committing suicide with a firearm or intimidate their spouse and children with them, you can target them with a whole host of measures that are not just related to gun regulations. You can implement a buddy system where these people voluntarily give up their firearms to someone they know and trust. Or that these people receive special and very quick psychological help. When was the last time, Second Amendment activists or the gun lobby have suggested that and pushed Congress very hard to pass laws in this respect?

If a government agency has data which shows guns make a person less safe during a home invasion, this is objective scientific inquiry. I have no complaints.

If a government agency has data which shows a particular form of regulation will reduce the amount of deaths from guns, this is also objective scientific inquiry. I have no complaints.

We should use this regulation because saving those lives is more important than retaining the freedom to have guns is the value judgement.

I didn't mean this as a rhetorical question or pointless grandstanding. I would like to hear from those in favor of guns where you believe the line is? What would have to happen for 2A supporters to take up arms? An administration colluding with a foreign power to rig an election? Constant, uncontrollable mass surveillance?

We should use this regulation because saving those lives is more important than retaining the freedom to have guns is the value judgement.

According to the CDC website, their mission statement is: (emphasis added)

CDC works 24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S. Whether diseases start at home or abroad, are chronic or acute, curable or preventable, human error or deliberate attack, CDC fights disease and supports communities and citizens to do the same.

CDC increases the health security of our nation. As the nation’s health protection agency, CDC saves lives and protects people from health threats. To accomplish our mission, CDC conducts critical science and provides health information that protects our nation against expensive and dangerous health threats, and responds when these arise.

No where in the statement does it say it should do these things while remaining politically neutral. My expectation of the agency based on their mission would be to propose support regulation that would save lives.

Perhaps you may argue that proposing legislation is different than suspending constitutional rights and freedoms, but would not a mandatory quarantine be, at least arguably, violate the 5th amendment (and possibly the 4th)?

Now, libertarians try to go by collections of reasoned arguments, and we all know what dicks they are.

This is well and truly a statement only a libertarian/libertarian sympathiser could make with a straight face. While I'm quoting websites:

The Libertarian Party (LP) is your representative in American politics. It is the only political organization which respects you as a unique and responsible individual.

Our slogan is that we are “The Party of Principle”, because we stand firmly on our principles.

Libertarians strongly oppose any government interference into their personal, family, and business decisions. Essentially, we believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another.

We should use this regulation because saving those lives is more important than retaining the freedom to have guns is the value judgement.

Yes, one made by politicians rather than the CDC, because they are the ones making the laws in the US. And politicians are free to take recommendations from other sources into account, e. g. from law enforcement, which have different perspectives. They are in charge of weighing all the interests and come up with laws.

Liberal morals follow one set of survival instincts. Conservatives follow a similar set, but add authoritarian ones on top of it.

In contrast, libertarian morals follow a reasoned argument: we should take our morals and push them off a cliff.

I think all three are making a kind of moral, or philosophical argument. I genuinely believe both 'liberals' and 'conservatives' want to create a better society with the most benefit to the most people. They believe, generally based on how they view the evidence (I'm not saying they are good at it, but it's what they attempt to do), that the policies they promote will more effectively achieve the goal of a better society. Both philosophies have changed some of their very fundamental principles over the years. Democrats used to be segregationists. Republicans used to hate Russia. The end goal is the same, it's just attitudes and evidence has changed.

Libertarians don't care about making a better society with the most benefit to the most people. They care about individual liberty. No amount of evidence that their end goal will cause large scale societal, environmental, and public heath harm will ever change that.

So maybe it's not moral, but it's dogmatic and completely divorced from reason.

According to the CDC website, their mission statement is: (emphasis added)
No where in the statement does it say it should do these things while remaining politically neutral. My expectation of the agency based on their mission would be to propose support regulation that would save lives.

Perhaps you may argue that proposing legislation is different than suspending constitutional rights and freedoms, but would not a mandatory quarantine be, at least arguably, violate the 5th amendment (and possibly the 4th)?

The paragraph above the one quoted was an attempt to show I’m not objecting to anything here. None of this I have a problem with.

The CDC went beyond this. What they did is go on the record stating their intent was to take the model they found so successful with cigarettes and apply it to guns. For a response like this to be warranted, the benefit of guns to society must be outstripped by the cost.

The primary argument for what benefit guns provide society is as a deterrent to and defense against tyranny. It is not warranted to apply the cigarette model to guns unless this argument is invalid.

The validity of this argument is an open debate. The CDC decided it was closed based on nothing they could show other than their opinion it’s not valid. That’s what I have a problem with.

The CDC went beyond this. What they did is go on the record stating their intent was to take the model they found so successful with cigarettes and apply it to guns. For a response like this to be warranted, the benefit of guns to society must be outstripped by the cost.

What's the problem with weighing benefits and costs exactly? We do this all the time to decide whether we should or should not do something — that's hardly something I would call “the cigarette model”, that's how economics models rational actors (which, hint, hint, humans are anything but). Keep in mind that science only deals with things that are measurably, not things that are philosophical. So the CDC contributed one of many perspectives to guns, others came from law enforcement, from lobby groups and the like. I don't see what the problem is, other than that you don't like the conclusion.

Originally Posted by subego

The primary argument for what benefit guns provide society is as a deterrent to and defense against tyranny. It is not warranted to apply the cigarette model to guns unless this argument is invalid.

Whether guns are an effective deterrent is a question that can be investigated scientifically, the second not really. At least the first question can be answered, but only if you do research. But you only want to admit research to be done if you can show this argument to be invalid. That's circular reasons to prevent research, nothing more.

Originally Posted by subego

The validity of this argument is an open debate. The CDC decided it was closed based on nothing they could show other than their opinion it’s not valid. That’s what I have a problem with.

If you base your conclusions on data, it's not an opinion, and you may equally well hold the opposite opinion. This isn't how science works.

The paragraph above the one quoted was an attempt to show I’m not objecting to anything here. None of this I have a problem with.

The CDC went beyond this. What they did is go on the record stating their intent was to take the model they found so successful with cigarettes and apply it to guns. For a response like this to be warranted, the benefit of guns to society must be outstripped by the cost.

The primary argument for what benefit guns provide society is as a deterrent to and defense against tyranny. It is not warranted to apply the cigarette model to guns unless this argument is invalid.

The validity of this argument is an open debate. The CDC decided it was closed based on nothing they could show other than their opinion it’s not valid. That’s what I have a problem with.

It is not the CDC's mandate to prevent the rise of tyranny. It is their mandate to save lives. If the evidence supports banning or limiting gun ownership will save lives, the CDC taking a position was following their mandate. It's up to others to weigh to overall cost to society.

There is a cost to society for limiting the sale and consumption of cigarettes, both in terms of economics and personal freedom. The CDC's role would be to present the case that the harm to public health was greater than any benefit. They successfully did this. There were, and remain, plenty of arguments against them.

How exactly is the gun debate any different other than to a large portion of society guns remain a sacred cow? This doesn't alter evidence/facts or the CDC mission.

How exactly is the gun debate any different other than to a large portion of society guns remain a sacred cow? This doesn't alter evidence/facts or the CDC mission.

I would like to add that it is not the CDC who decides what gun control will look like, and it is clear that they are only supposed to provide their perspective as a public health organization. There are other sides who contribute different perspectives to this topic (law enforcement, organizations for vets perhaps, etc.).

It is not the CDC's mandate to prevent the rise of tyranny. It is their mandate to save lives. If the evidence supports banning or limiting gun ownership will save lives, the CDC taking a position was following their mandate. It's up to others to weigh to overall cost to society.

There is a cost to society for limiting the sale and consumption of cigarettes, both in terms of economics and personal freedom. The CDC's role would be to present the case that the harm to public health was greater than any benefit. They successfully did this. There were, and remain, plenty of arguments against them.

How exactly is the gun debate any different other than to a large portion of society guns remain a sacred cow? This doesn't alter evidence/facts or the CDC mission.

There is no difference. If the CDC can provide an analysis showing the cost is greater than the benefit, they can knock themselves out.

They did this with cigarettes.

Where is the analysis guns aren’t saving lives by preventing tyranny? That’s the entire rationale behind why we have the freedom. What is the argument for not including it in a cost-benefit analysis of the public health implications?

There is no difference. If the CDC can provide an analysis showing the cost is greater than the benefit, they can knock themselves out.

They did this with cigarettes.

Where is the analysis guns aren’t saving lives by preventing tyranny? That’s the entire rationale behind why we have the freedom. What is the argument for not including it in a cost-benefit analysis of the public health implications?

Because the CDC is full of scientists. Guns preventing the rise of tyranny in modern United States cannot be studied scientifically, using evidence or facts. It is a philosophical, bordering on religious, argument.

Because the CDC is full of scientists. Guns preventing the rise of tyranny in modern United States cannot be studied scientifically, using evidence or facts. It is a philosophical, bordering on religious, argument.

Does this not apply to the argument guns don’t prevent the rise of tyranny?

Does this not apply to the argument guns don’t prevent the rise of tyranny?

Again:

- this is like sacrificing so much for the fifth or sixth backup of your data

- an armed uprising is unnecessary to accomplish modern political objectives, look at all of the small terrorist cells all around the world

- politicians are often interested in power in the form of money, and they've been having their way for years now with the population's open support. What is tyranny exactly, and is it tyranny if there is not unanimous agreement of the tyranny?

Sorry man, this really just seems like a way of justifying something you want to justify, because in our heart you really want there to be a world that fits your views.

They made the philosophical, bordering on religious argument the costs of guns outweigh benefits to an extent analogous with cigarettes.

Does this not call into question their impartiality?

Is not an at least an attempt at impartiality a requirement for objective scientific inquiry?

I've not read the CDC study, but your and most other arguments seem to stem from one or both of these quotes:

Originally Posted by Dr. Katherine Christoffel, a member of the CDC-funded Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan, In 1994

Guns are a virus that must be eradicated… They are causing an epidemic of death by gunshot, which should be treated like any epidemic…you get rid of the virus…get rid of the guns, get rid of the bullets, and you get rid of deaths.

Originally Posted by CDC head Mark Rosenberg, also in 1994

we need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like we did with cigarettes. Now it is dirty, deadly and banned.”

Where do you see them making a philosophical argument? The are both making a public health argument. The CDC, as far as I'm aware, neither wrote nor enacted any legislation regarding cigarettes. They looked at the evidence, made recommendations, and lawmakers acted.

Again, the CDC is focused on public heath. It is clear that guns are a massive public heath issue. That they shouldn't advocate on a public health issue is absurd.

As you've pointed out, for now, it's settled law- The Supreme Court has spoken. So what's the issue? Let the CDC get the facts out and let the public decide- based on fact rather than conjecture and anecdote (and massive lobbying) if guns are worth the cost to society.

People are dying. It's preventable. Just like with cigarettes. It's bizarre to think that a public heath group should just shut up about it.

What is a modern political objective as opposed to a ye olde-timey one?

Effective. Why would you need an army when you can just use the same tactics the Las Vegas shooter used to take out a leader? I see no reason why they couldn't do this. Targeting the general population stokes fear and division, which is more effective than taking out a leader which would likely create a lot of solidarity. When it comes to crowd control though, I don't think it is really possible to keep everybody safe in a large crowd. We choose to believe we are safe because to not believe this is the path to paranoia and madness, but... IOW, it is totally possible to murder politicians using terrorist tactics and a very small number of people.

I'm not saying that political objectives are necessarily much different, that was a poor choice of words on my part, but there are far more modern tools for mobilizing and organizing terrorism than just standing in the city square and trying to rile people up. The internet is kind of a big deal.

“Guns are a virus which must be eradicated” isn’t a philosophical argument?

Show me the science proving this is an appropriate analogy.

Thats just it, its an analogy rather than an argument. The argument is that if you remove the guns, the gun deaths plummet. This has been evident in every single developed country which is not at war or in a war zone without exception to the best of my knowledge.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....

Thats just it, its an analogy rather than an argument. The argument is that if you remove the guns, the gun deaths plummet. This has been evident in every single developed country which is not at war or in a war zone without exception to the best of my knowledge.

See how you were able to make that point without being inflammatory in a way you don’t have evidence to support?

When randos on the internet are better at science than the CDC, I’m inclined to do things like tell the CDC to back off.

I feel like in this instance they were shooting for a simplification rather than being deliberately inflammatory. Why they might think that gun enthusiasts need things to be super-simplified is another issue.

Put in a less inflammatory way, the most stubborn gun rights advocates are on the right, the right has a track record of not understanding/accepting science that is worsening by the day.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....

I have to concur with WAS here- I see their statements as either a philosophical argument or particularly inflammatory. It's simply using a medical metaphor to describe the public heath crisis caused by gun culture in the US.

I suppose I could understand that if I was philosophically inclined to support 2nd Amendment rights as currently defined by the Supreme Court, I would be taken aback by the language. But I imagine I would have been equally taken aback by the language used to describe the public health costs of cigarettes if I made my living as a tobacco farmer. Or by their position on vaccines if I was an anti-vaxxer.

I think you expect them to be impartial on the question as to whether the harm of guns is negated by the possible good. Again, I say that is not their mission. If the CDC had scientific evidence that the freedom of the press was causing a health crisis along the lines of cigarettes and guns, I would expect them, in line with their mission, to vigorously recommend suspending those rights.

I would expect others, such as politicians, advocacy groups, etc, to make the case that the cost is worth it.

The CDC should not be in the business of balancing political, philosophical, or religious issues against public health. That's someone else's job.

I feel like in this instance they were shooting for a simplification rather than being deliberately inflammatory. Why they might think that gun enthusiasts need things to be super-simplified is another issue.

Let me get this straight.

They said “must be eradicated”, because if they didn’t, dipshits wouldn’t understand?

You don't take the guns away to stop terrorists, though it can't hurt to make things tougher for them. You take them away to save the unsupervised kids, the angry drunks, the suicidal drunks, the jilted lovers etc.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....

I have to concur with WAS here- I see their statements as either a philosophical argument or particularly inflammatory. It's simply using a medical metaphor to describe the public heath crisis caused by gun culture in the US.

I suppose I could understand that if I was philosophically inclined to support 2nd Amendment rights as currently defined by the Supreme Court, I would be taken aback by the language. But I imagine I would have been equally taken aback by the language used to describe the public health costs of cigarettes if I made my living as a tobacco farmer. Or by their position on vaccines if I was an anti-vaxxer.

I think you expect them to be impartial on the question as to whether the harm of guns is negated by the possible good. Again, I say that is not their mission. If the CDC had scientific evidence that the freedom of the press was causing a health crisis along the lines of cigarettes and guns, I would expect them, in line with their mission, to vigorously recommend suspending those rights.

I would expect others, such as politicians, advocacy groups, etc, to make the case that the cost is worth it.

The CDC should not be in the business of balancing political, philosophical, or religious issues against public health. That's someone else's job.

Are the CDC allowed to pursue all recommendations with equal vigor, or should the vigor instead correlate with the epistemological strength of their cost-benefit analysis?

From their standpoint, if a virus is killing lots of people, you do what it takes to eradicate it. Most people see virus eradication as the CDCs entire reason for being, so its not like the analogy isn't appropriate in that way too.
Most people who aren't irrationally obsessed with guns think about them the same way. All the stats say having more of them about directly correlates with higher death rates and this also makes very logical sense when you think it through.

Comparing it to a virus firstly brings it more in line with the popular view of their remit and secondly offers a potentially new and different way to think about guns. Either the prevalence of guns themselves, or the spread of the ideology around guns that causes or maintains that prevalence. People's ideas about guns are way off the mark and the makers and their agents are working hard to keep things that way. No-one is really working against that tactic because there is no effective counter to it. Its brainwashing and wilful ignorance and its power has been harnessed for other things since the gun lobby worked out the magic formula. Its why you have president rapey in office.

Hear what you want to hear, ignore the experts and the science, here are a few arguments that sound reasonable and logical if you don't think too hard about them in case you ever feel like trying to argue your case for a couple of minutes before getting bored and frustrated like a toddler trying to learn maths and throw a tantrum in all caps and walk away mid discussion.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....

If this is what they believe, then they believe guns provide little or no anti-tyranny benefit.

This is because...

A) They’ve shown the anti-tyranny theory is invalid
B) The theory is so bad it’s unworthy of consideration
C) They get to pretend the theory doesn’t exist, since everybody knows proper scientific method is to take theories worthy of consideration and pretend they don’t exist
D) It’s their goddamn opinion

Its pretty much impossible to address the tyranny theory scientifically in any useful way. Its really more a philosophical question.

The word tyranny is not clearly defined by any absolute measurable criteria, its subjective. One or more leaders or influencers could sway a population to move earlier or later. There isn't even a defined percentage of the population you need to armed/onboard with rebellion. Everything about it is vague. Opinion is almost all there is unless you want to run long winded, expensive simulations that people can easily find holes big enough to drive buses through.

The single most scientific criteria you can apply is the projected casualty rate of a rebellion/civil war which you then compare to the death toll due to having so many guns in circulation. Last I checked those two numbers were about either the same or the gun deaths were way higher. Two or three times. Even if you're only breaking even now, those lives are already wasted insurance payments. And any more to come are wasted overpayments. You could have bought a spare country in case you needed it.

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....